7 ms·

Automatically Blackballed

69 points by ovechtrick 14y ago

8ig8 14y ago
Just adding some additional background. I happened on a related post earlier today on ThemeShaper ("Home of the Automattic Theme Team)... http://themeshaper.com/2013/01/24/envato-license/ http://themeshaper.com/2013/01/24/envato-license/
AnthonyMouse 14y ago
Is there some legal or other reason why you can't dual license the things in question under both licenses? Or would that just not satisfy anyone?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
loceng 14y ago
Why is no one talking about the motives behind why Wordpress is doing this?
- uptown 14y ago
  Here's your chance - what are their motives behind them doing this?
- analog 14y ago
  It's interesting that the themes available on Wordpress.com aren't GPL licensed. This does seem a little hypocritical.
  - evansolomon 14y ago
    That's incorrect. https://wpcom-themes.svn.automattic.com/ https://wpcom-themes.svn.automattic.com/
    - analog 14y ago
      We were told by one of their support team that we were not allowed to alter the theme to hide the link to wordpress.com. This is on a paid account. So they may say it is GPL, but in practice it's not.
      - djt 14y ago
        you mean the link in the Footer? It may be in the terms of the Hosting contract?
        analog 14y ago
        Yes that's it. But if the terms of the hosting contract limit what you can do with the code then in it's not GPL. They distribute the css, in that they let us edit it, but they limit what we can do with it. Not GPL.
        Dylan16807 14y ago
        Yeah and I bet they don't let you edit /etc/passwd either. Restrictions on their server have nothing to do with copyleft.
        analog 14y ago
        Right, because it's a security issue to restrict how you edit the css.
    - evansolomon 14y ago
      analog, which part of the GPL does that violate? I think you're wrong. The GPL governs code, not services (even services that use GPL code).
    - DannyBee 14y ago
      I see nothing in this source repo that says they are GPL'd. What am i missing?
8ig8 14y ago
For more context, the GPL/WordPress debate got a lot of attention in the summer of 2010 when WordPress.org was bumping heads with the Thesis Theme. http://nacin.com/2010/07/15/thesis-gpl/ http://nacin.com/2010/07/15/thesis-gpl/ http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Gpl+Wordpress+ http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Gpl+Wordpre... Edit: Changed Automattic to WordPress.org
forrestthewoods 14y ago
What is the source of the GPL virus in all this? What bits of technology are built upon GPL code? Would be feasible to re-write that code or theme such that it could be released in a less freedom restricting manner?
- dangrossman 14y ago
  WordPress itself is GPL licensed, and its creator, Automattic, contends that all themes and plugins for the CMS are derivative works, and must therefore be GPL licensed as well. Which is probably true, since in addition to being nonfunctional without WordPress to provide the functions themes and plugins hook into, they commonly copy large bits of code from the main codebase and make minor changes to them. Envato allows you to list WordPress themes and plugins for sale in their marketplace, ThemeForest. They make these products available under a split license: the PHP code that interfaces with WordPress is made available under the GPL. CSS, JavaScript and binary assets are made available under a commercial license. WordPress does not argue that the above scenario is illegal, only that if you split-license works like that, you're not welcome to present at conferences that use their name.
  - lftl 14y ago
    If you do "copy large bits of code from the main codebase" this is moot, but I've wondered about the other point. If I don't copy any bits, I'm not really sure why my PHP code would necessarily fall under the GPL. What if I made NotGPLPress that had API compatibility with WP's theme API, but was otherwise my implementation and released under a BSD license. That seems to be the exact same battle Google and Oracle just fought over Java, with Google essentially winning the APIs are not copyrightable battle. At that point couldn't every theme author just say that their theme is built for NotGPLPress and license it however they want? It seems odd that the existence or non-existence of another implementation should affect an author's licensing obligations.
    - bigiain 14y ago
      Heh - I wonder of NotGPLPress would even have to work? ThemeForest could start selling NotGPLPress themes, with a note that NotGPLPress happens to be 100% API compatible with Wordpress. You'd need to ensure your themes weren't cut-n-pastes from code that is copyright Wordpress, but apart from that… Of course, the bigger problem seems to be that (some) theme authors want to be "part of the Wordpress community", presumably largely for professional and monetary reasons, while ignoring that "the Wordpress community" is strongly reliant on (and fundamentally beholden too) Automatic, and they can (and do) place expectations on the behaviours of participants in "the community", and they can (and now are) requiring that participants at events they run comply with those expectations. If you want to be "part of a community" which is reliant on one company, you probably need to play by their rules, even if you can whip out your rules-lawyer hat and claim "but those rules aren't strict interpretations of 'the law'".
krogsgard 14y ago
This whole story has gone on for a week now, and has been discussed a great deal. This post does a nice job summarizing the story, with links to many blog posts that came from Jake's original http://www.philerb.com/2013/01/wordpress-community-contributors-and-the-spirit-of-the-gpl/ http://www.philerb.com/2013/01/wordpress-community-contribut... Jake also discussed in on his PleaseAdvise podcast, as well as another podcast: http://pleaseadvise.fm/ http://pleaseadvise.fm/ http://wpcandy.com/podcasts/035-with-special-guest-jake-caputo/ http://wpcandy.com/podcasts/035-with-special-guest-jake-capu...
Cogito 14y ago
Just to be clear, this article is about why a wordpress theme maker is not allowed to participate at a wordpress conference because they are (through a proxy site ThemeForest) selling their themes with licensing that wordpress doesn't like. The main issue for the author is that they do not have control over the license used when selling on ThemeForest, and not selling on ThemeForest is not a viable option for them as sales through that platform account for most of their monthly income. The author states: """The only license available to authors on ThemeForest is a split license[0]. The PHP in our themes is covered under the GPL, but the images, CSS, and JavaScript are not. There’s nothing wrong with this, and I also have no problem with this; But it doesn’t meet those guidelines for WordCamps that I mentioned earlier.""" So users of the THemeForest platform are unable to license their themes in any way they wish, but must split license their themes. Wordpress has a problem with this, hence the hard line being drawn. Not sure what the resolution might be, but I think ThemeForest should allow fully GPL themes if authors so desire. Maybe there are implications to this I am not aware of? [0] http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Live/Knowledgebase/Article/View/428/0/split-licensing-and-the-gpl---what-does-it-all-mean http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Live/Knowledgebase/Arti...
- ars 14y ago
  The author can post a notice on his website: "Despite what it says on ThemeForest" all the files in my themes are actually GPL." Or just the simple notice: "All files in theme xxxx are licensed under the GPL." Don't themes come with a readme? Just put the GPL notification in there. Why do you have to pick your license using a ThemeForest tool?
  - mwill 14y ago
    There's an explanation transcribed in the post from a podcast: So the idea behind the split license is to protect authors in terms of their designs and things like that. The parts that have to be GPL are GPL, the parts that don’t have to be, we’re happy to provide that license to help you protect them. The other thing is that on the [Envato] marketplaces there are smaller component style items, so you could buy the extended license on the marketplace, and use that in your WordPress theme. And if you then make your WordPress theme 100% GPL, you just disregarded the license of the item you put into the theme. So it seems like they specifically discourage bypassing the split license.
8ig8 14y ago
Is this not unlike Apple's App Store? Developers aren't shy about their disdain for Apple's control, but in the end, it doesn't matter. If you want to make money, you need to play by Apple's rules. Likewise ThemeForest is the dominant marketplace for WordPress themes, with +2MM users. It sounds like ThemeForest can call the shots (for now) if the ultimate goal is profits.
cjbprime 14y ago
I think this is pretty reasonable behavior by wp.org. Their position has been entirely clear for years. No-one's forcing the OP to sell WP themes. No-one's required to find a way to let the OP profit from selling WP themes incompatibly with how the WP developers want their code to be used; much less to find a way to let the OP keep using one particular infringing WP theme site to sell his work when there are plenty of other theme sites out there that are successfully following the rules.
- jmillikin 14y ago
  There is no evidence that the author is selling infringing WP themes. Even if you accept that all clients of a library are inherently derivative works of that library (a stance I strongly oppose), there is no reasonable way to conclude that non-code theme assets must also be derivative. Trying to enforce additional restrictions on the author's own work is asinine.
  - prodigal_erik 14y ago
    The way I read > any person or business should give their users the same freedoms that WordPress itself provides. Note: this is one step above simple compliance, which requires PHP code to be GPL/compatible but allows proprietary licenses for JavaScript, CSS, and images. they are fully aware that theme authors can comply with the GPL yet impose restrictions on users via licensing of non-derivative assets. They're just refusing to promote such parasitic behavior.
    - tedunangst 14y ago
      If I'm buying a GPL PHP mod I can get elsewhere for free with not-GPL assets, chances are it's because I think the assets are worth paying for. If the assets add sufficient value that people would rather pay than use the free theme, what's the problem?
      - icebraining 14y ago
        Nothing in the article indicates they oppose charging, just distribution under different licenses. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
hakaaaaak 14y ago
"The PHP in our themes is covered under the GPL, but the images, CSS, and JavaScript are not." I know a lot of companies do this. Heck, even ID software provided free source of their engines, but didn't give away their WADs. But is the PhP in this case of any value without the rest? Can anything be done with it? If the PhP is of no value on its own and it specific to the CSS, JS, and images, then imo that totally would violate the spirit of GPL'ing the other. If that is the case and you want to have it be proprietary, don't provide the source/files for any of it (for the new stuff). If you want it to be GPL, then sell it, but make all of it free source, including the images, JS, and CSS. Note: I believe that Stallman's view (if you care) is that not providing images is ok if it is art and not source/required for the source, but I think that is a loophole that can be exploited, so I say make it all free. However, if the PhP provides some value on its own and is usable (like one of ID's engines), it's all good and do what you want. There is nothing in GPL that says that you can't get paid for it. Just because you have to provide the source for free doesn't mean people can't pay you for the work, it just means they can't pay you for the source. They could pay you for the bundle (which they could create on their own if they wanted for free, but some may not be savvy enough to do that). GPL is not anti-capitalist.
- ebiester 14y ago
  That's entirely true. But you're likely to sell very few copies, because all another company has to do is buy it for the price you ask, and redistribute en mass. All they have to do is make up the price they paid, you have to worry about the time you put into it. So what ends up happening is reduced quality or higher prices. (Basically, everything being a bespoke solution, because you aren't going to be selling too many.) The GPL is a poor model for something like a wordpress theme.
jiggy2011 14y ago
So, if I have this right. In order to speak at this wordpress conference one must not distribute anything related to wordpress that isn't 100% GPL? That's pretty hardcore.
darkarmani 14y ago
I feel like WP and that Matt guy are just trolling everyone. I'm waiting for the punchline: punked! "Why would we ban someone for how they sell some themes through a 3rd party provider? That would be crazy! You actually believed us??"
anu_gupta 14y ago
Odd - I submitted this story, with the same URL, 5 days ago http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5098033 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5098033
- ableal 14y ago
  Your URL had a double t. It (now) leads to the same URL and page as this submission. (Possibly someone changed their mind about the wordplay verbing the "Automattic" noun.)

69 points by ovechtrick 14y ago

8ig8 14y ago

Just adding some additional background. I happened on a related post earlier today on ThemeShaper ("Home of the Automattic Theme Team)... http://themeshaper.com/2013/01/24/envato-license/ http://themeshaper.com/2013/01/24/envato-license/

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

Is there some legal or other reason why you can't dual license the things in question under both licenses? Or would that just not satisfy anyone?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

loceng 14y ago

Why is no one talking about the motives behind why Wordpress is doing this?

uptown 14y ago
Here's your chance - what are their motives behind them doing this?
analog 14y ago
It's interesting that the themes available on Wordpress.com aren't GPL licensed. This does seem a little hypocritical.
- evansolomon 14y ago
  That's incorrect. https://wpcom-themes.svn.automattic.com/ https://wpcom-themes.svn.automattic.com/
  - analog 14y ago
    We were told by one of their support team that we were not allowed to alter the theme to hide the link to wordpress.com. This is on a paid account. So they may say it is GPL, but in practice it's not.
    - djt 14y ago
      you mean the link in the Footer? It may be in the terms of the Hosting contract?
      - analog 14y ago
        Yes that's it. But if the terms of the hosting contract limit what you can do with the code then in it's not GPL. They distribute the css, in that they let us edit it, but they limit what we can do with it. Not GPL.
        Dylan16807 14y ago
        Yeah and I bet they don't let you edit /etc/passwd either. Restrictions on their server have nothing to do with copyleft.
        analog 14y ago
        Right, because it's a security issue to restrict how you edit the css.
  - evansolomon 14y ago
    analog, which part of the GPL does that violate? I think you're wrong. The GPL governs code, not services (even services that use GPL code).
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    I see nothing in this source repo that says they are GPL'd. What am i missing?

8ig8 14y ago

For more context, the GPL/WordPress debate got a lot of attention in the summer of 2010 when WordPress.org was bumping heads with the Thesis Theme. http://nacin.com/2010/07/15/thesis-gpl/ http://nacin.com/2010/07/15/thesis-gpl/ http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Gpl+Wordpress+ http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Gpl+Wordpre... Edit: Changed Automattic to WordPress.org

forrestthewoods 14y ago

What is the source of the GPL virus in all this? What bits of technology are built upon GPL code? Would be feasible to re-write that code or theme such that it could be released in a less freedom restricting manner?

dangrossman 14y ago
WordPress itself is GPL licensed, and its creator, Automattic, contends that all themes and plugins for the CMS are derivative works, and must therefore be GPL licensed as well. Which is probably true, since in addition to being nonfunctional without WordPress to provide the functions themes and plugins hook into, they commonly copy large bits of code from the main codebase and make minor changes to them. Envato allows you to list WordPress themes and plugins for sale in their marketplace, ThemeForest. They make these products available under a split license: the PHP code that interfaces with WordPress is made available under the GPL. CSS, JavaScript and binary assets are made available under a commercial license. WordPress does not argue that the above scenario is illegal, only that if you split-license works like that, you're not welcome to present at conferences that use their name.
- lftl 14y ago
  If you do "copy large bits of code from the main codebase" this is moot, but I've wondered about the other point. If I don't copy any bits, I'm not really sure why my PHP code would necessarily fall under the GPL. What if I made NotGPLPress that had API compatibility with WP's theme API, but was otherwise my implementation and released under a BSD license. That seems to be the exact same battle Google and Oracle just fought over Java, with Google essentially winning the APIs are not copyrightable battle. At that point couldn't every theme author just say that their theme is built for NotGPLPress and license it however they want? It seems odd that the existence or non-existence of another implementation should affect an author's licensing obligations.
  - bigiain 14y ago
    Heh - I wonder of NotGPLPress would even have to work? ThemeForest could start selling NotGPLPress themes, with a note that NotGPLPress happens to be 100% API compatible with Wordpress. You'd need to ensure your themes weren't cut-n-pastes from code that is copyright Wordpress, but apart from that… Of course, the bigger problem seems to be that (some) theme authors want to be "part of the Wordpress community", presumably largely for professional and monetary reasons, while ignoring that "the Wordpress community" is strongly reliant on (and fundamentally beholden too) Automatic, and they can (and do) place expectations on the behaviours of participants in "the community", and they can (and now are) requiring that participants at events they run comply with those expectations. If you want to be "part of a community" which is reliant on one company, you probably need to play by their rules, even if you can whip out your rules-lawyer hat and claim "but those rules aren't strict interpretations of 'the law'".

krogsgard 14y ago

This whole story has gone on for a week now, and has been discussed a great deal. This post does a nice job summarizing the story, with links to many blog posts that came from Jake's original http://www.philerb.com/2013/01/wordpress-community-contributors-and-the-spirit-of-the-gpl/ http://www.philerb.com/2013/01/wordpress-community-contribut... Jake also discussed in on his PleaseAdvise podcast, as well as another podcast: http://pleaseadvise.fm/ http://pleaseadvise.fm/ http://wpcandy.com/podcasts/035-with-special-guest-jake-caputo/ http://wpcandy.com/podcasts/035-with-special-guest-jake-capu...

Cogito 14y ago

Just to be clear, this article is about why a wordpress theme maker is not allowed to participate at a wordpress conference because they are (through a proxy site ThemeForest) selling their themes with licensing that wordpress doesn't like. The main issue for the author is that they do not have control over the license used when selling on ThemeForest, and not selling on ThemeForest is not a viable option for them as sales through that platform account for most of their monthly income. The author states: """The only license available to authors on ThemeForest is a split license[0]. The PHP in our themes is covered under the GPL, but the images, CSS, and JavaScript are not. There’s nothing wrong with this, and I also have no problem with this; But it doesn’t meet those guidelines for WordCamps that I mentioned earlier.""" So users of the THemeForest platform are unable to license their themes in any way they wish, but must split license their themes. Wordpress has a problem with this, hence the hard line being drawn. Not sure what the resolution might be, but I think ThemeForest should allow fully GPL themes if authors so desire. Maybe there are implications to this I am not aware of? [0] http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Live/Knowledgebase/Article/View/428/0/split-licensing-and-the-gpl---what-does-it-all-mean http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Live/Knowledgebase/Arti...

ars 14y ago
The author can post a notice on his website: "Despite what it says on ThemeForest" all the files in my themes are actually GPL." Or just the simple notice: "All files in theme xxxx are licensed under the GPL." Don't themes come with a readme? Just put the GPL notification in there. Why do you have to pick your license using a ThemeForest tool?
- mwill 14y ago
  There's an explanation transcribed in the post from a podcast: So the idea behind the split license is to protect authors in terms of their designs and things like that. The parts that have to be GPL are GPL, the parts that don’t have to be, we’re happy to provide that license to help you protect them. The other thing is that on the [Envato] marketplaces there are smaller component style items, so you could buy the extended license on the marketplace, and use that in your WordPress theme. And if you then make your WordPress theme 100% GPL, you just disregarded the license of the item you put into the theme. So it seems like they specifically discourage bypassing the split license.

8ig8 14y ago

Is this not unlike Apple's App Store? Developers aren't shy about their disdain for Apple's control, but in the end, it doesn't matter. If you want to make money, you need to play by Apple's rules. Likewise ThemeForest is the dominant marketplace for WordPress themes, with +2MM users. It sounds like ThemeForest can call the shots (for now) if the ultimate goal is profits.

cjbprime 14y ago

I think this is pretty reasonable behavior by wp.org. Their position has been entirely clear for years. No-one's forcing the OP to sell WP themes. No-one's required to find a way to let the OP profit from selling WP themes incompatibly with how the WP developers want their code to be used; much less to find a way to let the OP keep using one particular infringing WP theme site to sell his work when there are plenty of other theme sites out there that are successfully following the rules.

jmillikin 14y ago
There is no evidence that the author is selling infringing WP themes. Even if you accept that all clients of a library are inherently derivative works of that library (a stance I strongly oppose), there is no reasonable way to conclude that non-code theme assets must also be derivative. Trying to enforce additional restrictions on the author's own work is asinine.
- prodigal_erik 14y ago
  The way I read > any person or business should give their users the same freedoms that WordPress itself provides. Note: this is one step above simple compliance, which requires PHP code to be GPL/compatible but allows proprietary licenses for JavaScript, CSS, and images. they are fully aware that theme authors can comply with the GPL yet impose restrictions on users via licensing of non-derivative assets. They're just refusing to promote such parasitic behavior.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    If I'm buying a GPL PHP mod I can get elsewhere for free with not-GPL assets, chances are it's because I think the assets are worth paying for. If the assets add sufficient value that people would rather pay than use the free theme, what's the problem?
    - icebraining 14y ago
      Nothing in the article indicates they oppose charging, just distribution under different licenses. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html

hakaaaaak 14y ago

"The PHP in our themes is covered under the GPL, but the images, CSS, and JavaScript are not." I know a lot of companies do this. Heck, even ID software provided free source of their engines, but didn't give away their WADs. But is the PhP in this case of any value without the rest? Can anything be done with it? If the PhP is of no value on its own and it specific to the CSS, JS, and images, then imo that totally would violate the spirit of GPL'ing the other. If that is the case and you want to have it be proprietary, don't provide the source/files for any of it (for the new stuff). If you want it to be GPL, then sell it, but make all of it free source, including the images, JS, and CSS. Note: I believe that Stallman's view (if you care) is that not providing images is ok if it is art and not source/required for the source, but I think that is a loophole that can be exploited, so I say make it all free. However, if the PhP provides some value on its own and is usable (like one of ID's engines), it's all good and do what you want. There is nothing in GPL that says that you can't get paid for it. Just because you have to provide the source for free doesn't mean people can't pay you for the work, it just means they can't pay you for the source. They could pay you for the bundle (which they could create on their own if they wanted for free, but some may not be savvy enough to do that). GPL is not anti-capitalist.

ebiester 14y ago
That's entirely true. But you're likely to sell very few copies, because all another company has to do is buy it for the price you ask, and redistribute en mass. All they have to do is make up the price they paid, you have to worry about the time you put into it. So what ends up happening is reduced quality or higher prices. (Basically, everything being a bespoke solution, because you aren't going to be selling too many.) The GPL is a poor model for something like a wordpress theme.

jiggy2011 14y ago

So, if I have this right. In order to speak at this wordpress conference one must not distribute anything related to wordpress that isn't 100% GPL? That's pretty hardcore.

darkarmani 14y ago

I feel like WP and that Matt guy are just trolling everyone. I'm waiting for the punchline: punked! "Why would we ban someone for how they sell some themes through a 3rd party provider? That would be crazy! You actually believed us??"

anu_gupta 14y ago

Odd - I submitted this story, with the same URL, 5 days ago http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5098033 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5098033

ableal 14y ago
Your URL had a double t. It (now) leads to the same URL and page as this submission. (Possibly someone changed their mind about the wordplay verbing the "Automattic" noun.)